E-038 Stroke registries and publication metrics in relation to registration and industry sponsorship. (23rd July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Khawar, W; Monteiro, A; Bolanos, O; Donnelly, B; Snyder, K; Davies, J; Levy, E; Siddiqui, A
• Is Part Of: Journal of neurointerventional surgery. Volume 14(2022)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A95
• Page End: A95
• Publication Date: 2022-07-23
• Subjects: Nervous system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Cerebrovascular disease -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.48
• DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2022-SNIS.149
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1759-8478

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Stroke registries represent a main source of data to the advances of medical literature. In stroke medicine, they serve as key points of discussion and elaboration for future clinical trials, as well as evaluation tools for several treatment modalities in different patient populations. We performed an analysis of recent stroke registries to evaluate their impact in literature and differences among them. Methods: We performed a systematic search on PubMed and Google Scholar using keywords with Boolean operators ('stroke'; 'registry'; 'database'), from their inception to current date. Identified articles were screened to identify stroke registries as data sources for each study. Identified registries were then searched on the same libraries to identify publications deriving from their data. The impact factors of all journals containing these publications were extracted from the most recent updates on each journal submission website. Citations of each publication were extracted from Google Scholar. The expected number of citations were calculated for each publication based on the impact factor of the respective journals and time since publication. We then calculated the difference between the expected and actual number of citations, which we called the 'impact difference index'. Analyses were performed for these metrics of registries in relation to registration at clinicaltrials.gov and industry sponsorship. Results: We found 94 total stroke registries, and further excluded 12 due to a lack of publications. The 82 remaining registries had an aggregate of 5, 829, 791 patients. Get-With-The-Guidelines and the Paul Coverdell National Acute Stroke Registry contributed 3, 892, 063 and 1, 000, 000 patients, respectively. Seventy-four (90.2%) were prospective. Sixty-five (79.3%) were multicenter. Thirty-one (37.8%) were registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Eleven (13.4%) were specific to a particular device or sponsored by industry. The United States and China were the most involved countries at 16 (19.5%) and 15 (18.3%) registries each. The registries produced 517 peer-reviewed publications, 18, 291 citations, and a sum of impact factors of 3428.8. The median number of citations was nine (interquartile range 1.0–28.5) and the median impact factor of journals was 5.8 (interquartile range 4.0–7.9). One-hundred-and-eighty-four (35.59%) publications reached or exceeded their expected number of citations, implying that those papers generated more citations than projected from their respective journals' impact factors. Registered stroke registries had a significantly lower median number of citations (P<0.001) but were not significantly different regarding median impact factor (P=0.106) and median impact difference index (P=0.070). Industry-sponsored registries had a significantly higher median impact factor (P<0.001), but a significantly lower median number of citations (P<0.001) and median impact difference index (P<0.001). Conclusions: Stroke registries generate a substantial amount of publications and citations in literature. Approximately two-thirds of all publications do not reach their expected number of citations. Those registered at clinicaltrials.gov have fewer citations than their unregistered counterparts. Industry-sponsored registries have a higher impact factor, reflecting their publications in more prominent journals, but are less cited than non-sponsored ones. Disclosures: W. Khawar: None. A. Monteiro: None. O. Bolanos: 5; C; Medtronic. B. Donnelly: None. K. Snyder: 2; C; Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems USA, Inc., MicroVention, Medtronic, Stryker Neurovascular. 3; C; Canon Medical Systems USA Inc.. 4; C; Boston Scientific, Access Closure Inc, Niagara Gorge Medical. J. Davies: 1; C; NIH NINDS, NSF SBIR. 2; C; Medtronic. 3; C; Medtronic. 4; C; Synchron, Cerebrotech, QAS.ai, RIST. E. Levy: 2; C; Claret Medical, GLG Consulting, Guidepoint Global, Imperial Care, Medtronic, Rebound, StimMed, Misionix, Mosiac, Clarion, IRRAS. 3; C; Medtronic. 4; C; NeXtGen Biologics, RAPID Medical, Claret Medical, Cognition Medical, Imperative Care, Rebound Therapeutics, StimMed, Three Rivers Medical. 6; C; Reimbursement for travel and food for some meetings with the CNS and ABNS. A. Siddiqui: 2; C; Amnis Therapeutics, Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boston Scientific, Canon Medical Systems USA, Inc., Cardinal Health 200, LLC, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Inc., Cerenovus, Cerevatech Medical, Inc., . 4; C; Adona Medical, Inc., Amnis Therapeutics, Bend IT Technologies, Ltd., BlinkTBI, Inc, Buffalo Technology Partners, Inc., Cardinal Consultants, LLC, Cerebrotech Medical Systems, Inc, Cerevatech Medical.